Lewis v. Jackson Cnty.

1

BRIAN T LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. (1) JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI;

(2) JOSEPH PICCININI, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS FORMER DIRECTOR JACKSON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; (3) SEBASTINE U OKOLO, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; (4) LEA HENDERSON, IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; (5) JOHN DOE #1, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; (6) JANE DOE #1, IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; (7) JOHN DOE #2, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; (8) JANE DOE #2, IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; (9) JOHN DOE #3, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; and (10) JANE DOE #3, IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; Defendants.

No. 4:21-cv-00230-RK

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division

December 10, 2021

ORDER

ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendants Jackson County, Missouri; Joseph Piccinini; Sebastine U. Okolo; and Lea Henderson's motion to dismiss Counts I, II and III of Plaintiff's amended petition. (Doc. 18.) The motion is fully briefed. (Docs. 19 22, 26.) After careful consideration, and for the reasons below, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. Background

In an amended petition filed July 7, 2021 (Doc. 14), Plaintiff brings several claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging his constitutional rights were violated while he was held as a pre-trial detainee at the Jackson County Detention Center (“JCDC”) from approximately December 21, 2015, through January 22, 2018.

Defendant Jackson County owns and operates JCDC. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Defendant Joseph Piccinini was appointed acting director of the Jackson County Department of Corrections in June 2015. (Id. at ¶ 25.) Defendant Sebastine Okolo was a corrections officer at JCDC (id. at ¶ 6), and Lieutenant Lea S. Henderson was an officer/supervisor at JCDC while Plaintiff was held at JCDC. (Id. at ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff alleges various problems and deficiencies with the detention center are well known and persistent. In particular, Plaintiff alleges on October 29, 2015, a Jackson County Department of Corrections Task Force issued its report finding that various problems at the JCDC facility were caused by the facility's lack of accreditation and the low salaries paid to JCDC corrections officers, and that more funding is needed to upgrade and repair the detention facility. (Id. at ¶¶ 24, 26-33; see Doc. 14-2.) Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that on August 11, 2017, Jackson County convened a grand jury to investigate various problems at JCDC, and that the grand jury issued its report in May 2018. (Doc. 14 at ¶ 36; see Doc. 14-3.) Plaintif f alleges the grand jury report found deficiencies in the management of the facility's budget; general staffing and training of corrections officers; and a failure to clean and maintain the overcrowded facility, among other issues. (Doc. 14 at ¶¶ 36-72.) Plaintiff alleges the Jackson County task force and grand jury reports “clearly show that mismanagement of the funds allotted to the Jail resulted in poorly paid and poorly trained staff.” (Id. at ¶ 73.)

Plaintiff alleges on February 8, 2016, he was housed in cell number 8 in Pod J3F at JCDC, having arrived a f ew days earlier. (Id. at ¶¶19, 79, 80.) Officer Okolo knew Plaintiff had been charged with offenses involving child molestation and incest, and called Plaintiff a “Baby-Raper” in the presence of other detainees in the pod. (Id. at ¶ 81.) Plaintiff alleges one of those other detainees housed in the pod called a relative who worked for JCDC and confirmed with that relative that Plaintiff had in fact been charged with such offenses. (Id. at ¶ 84.) Plaintiff then alleges “various inmates/detainees” used a plastic tool to open their own locked cell doors, other inmates' locked cell doors, and Plaintiff s locked cell door on two occasions on February 8, 2016, attacking him. (Id. at ¶ 95.) First, he was punched in the head by another inmate housed in Pod J3F. (Id. at ¶ 85.) Plaintiff requested assistance, resulting in the deployment of the “CERT team” to restore order in the pod. (Id. at ¶ 86.) Plaintiff alleges he “requested assistance from the JCDC staff on duty” and asked to be moved to a different pod. (Id. at ¶ 87.) Plaintiff's request was denied. (Id. at ¶ 88.) Plaintiff then alleges he was attacked a second time that day while he was in his own locked cell. (Id. at ¶ 89.) Plaintiff alleges the inmates/detainees “pulled their shirts over their faces” and physically and sexually assaulted him inside his cell. (Id. at ¶¶ 96-98.) Plaintiff lost consciousness during the assault, which occurred “sometime between 2100 and 2300 hours” (between 9:00 PM and 11:00 PM). (Id. at ¶¶ 99, 100.) The inmates/detainees placed a blanket over the railing to hide the attack on Plaintiff in his cell from video surveillance. (Id. at ¶ 103.) Only a portion of the attack was captured on video. (Id. at ¶ 106.)

JCDC personnel discovered Plaintiff s injuries later that night when they performed a bed check and noticed Plaintiff's face was swollen. (Id. at ¶¶ 101, 104.) Plaintiff was admitted to Truman Medical Center for medical treatment. (Id. at ¶ 102.) Plaintiff alleges that following the attack he was seen by JCDC medical staff at least eight separate times for pain, anxiety, flashbacks, depression, and for help with mental issues. (Id. at ¶ 111.)

The tool used to access Plaintiffs' locked cell was a “six (6) inch long by 2 (two) inches wide, piece of plastic [resembling a piece of a broom handle or a spoon]” other detainees used to “pry open any and all of the locked cell doors, anytime [they] wanted.” (Id. at ¶¶ 90, 91.) Plaintiff alleges this plastic tool was “kept in the Pod area, on the television, available for access by all the inmates/detainees.” (Id. at ¶ 92.)

Plaintiff asserts several claims under § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights:

■ Count I (brought against all Defendants): Plaintiff's Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment were violated based on the conditions of the JCDC facility during Plaintiff's pre-trial confinement from February 8, 2016, through January 22, 2018; ■ Count II (brought against Jackson County and Director Piccinini): Plaintiff s Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by Defendant's failure to adequately staff and train JCDC personnel resulting in the February 8, 2016, assaults; and

■ Count III (brought against Officer Okolo; Officer Lewis; Lieutenant Henderson; John Does #1, #2, and #3; and Jane Does #1, #2, and #3): Plaintiff's Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by Defendants' failure to intervene and protect Plaintiff regarding the February 8 assaults.

(Id. at 21-32.)^[1]

Defendants Jackson County, Director Piccinini, Officer Okolo, and Lieutenant Henderson move to dismiss Plaintiff s amended petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim under § 1983.

Further facts are set forth as necessary.

II. Standard of Review

To survive a motion to dismiss, a petition must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible if “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). While a petition does not need to include detailed factual allegations, the petition must allege more than a sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully to survive a motion to dismiss. Wilson v. Ark. Dep't of Human Serv., 850 F.3d 368, 371 (8th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). The Court “accept[s] the allegations contained in the complaint as true and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Cole v. Homier Distrib. Co., 599 F.3d 856, 861 (8th Cir. 2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted). The Court need not accept as true “pleadings that . . . are no more than conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

III. Discussion

A. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Claim

Defendants first argue Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment because he was confined at JCDC as a pre-trial detainee rather than as a convicted inmate. Plaintiff does not oppose this argument. It is well-established that claims of constitutional violations by pre-trial detainees “are properly analyzed under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment rather than the eighth amendment.” Davis v. Hall, 992 F.2d 151, 152 (8th Cir. 1993); Bordock v. City of Joplin, Mo., No. 04-5135-SW-RED, 2006 WL 744281, at *3 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 21, 2006) (“Generally, Plaintif f 's status as a pre-trial detainee would place [him] outside of the protections of the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment, which applies only to convicted prisoners.”) (citing Hott v. Hennepin Cty., 260 F.3d 901, 905 (8th Cir. 2001)). Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED to the extent the amended petition asserts any § 1983 claim for a violation of any rights secured by the Eighth Amendment.

B. Plaintiff's Conditions of Confinement Claim (Count I)

In Count I, Plaintiff asserts that his constitutional rights were violated by the conditions of his confinement at JCDC as a pre-trial detainee. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Defendants “exposed [Plaintiff] . . . to dangerous physical defects and conditions . . . by failing to conduct proper maintenance and cleaning, ” resulting in “dangerous levels of filth and mold on a constant basis.” Plaintiff alleges “[a]ll Defendants were responsible for the maintenance and administration of the JCDC premises” and that despite several complaints Plaintiff m...